Luk_7:47.
Οὗ
χάριν
, by Beza, Grotius, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others, is separated from
λέγω
σοι
by a comma, and connected with
ἀφέωνται
. But the latter has its limitation by
ὅτι
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. It is to be interpreted: on account of which I say unto thee; on behalf of this her manifestation of love (as a recognition and high estimation thereof) I declare to thee.
ἀφέωνται
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] her sins are forgiven, the many (that she has committed, Luk_7:37; Luk_7:39), since she has loved much. This
ὅτι
ἠγάπησε
πολύ
expresses not the cause, and therefore not the antecedent of forgiveness. That the words do express the antecedent of forgiveness is the opinion of the Catholics, who maintain thereby their doctrine of contritio charitate formata and of the merit of works; and lately, too, of de Wette, who recognises love for Christ and faith in Him as one; of Olshausen, who after his own fashion endeavours to overcome the difficulty of the thought by regarding love as a receptive activity; of Paulus, who drags in what is not found in the text; of Baumgarten-Crusius, and of Bleek. Although dogmatic theology is not decisive against this opinion (see the pertinent observations of Melanchthon in the Apol. iii. 31 ff. p. 87 f.), yet perhaps the context is, because this view directly contradicts the
παραβολή
, Luk_7:41-42, that lies at its foundation, as well as the
ᾧ
δὲ
ὀλίγον
ἀφίεται
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. which immediately follows, if the love does not appear as the consequent of the forgiveness; the antecedent, i.e. the subjective cause of the forgiveness, is not the love, but the faith of the penitent, as is plain from Luk_7:50. Contextually it is right, therefore, to understand
ὅτι
of the ground of recognition or acknowledgment: Her sins are forgiven, etc., which is certain, since she has manifested love in an exalted degree. Bengel says pertinently: “Remissio peccatorum, Simoni non cogitata, probatur a fructu, Luk_7:42, qui est evidens et in oculos incurrit, quum illa sit occulta;” and Calovius: “probat Christus a posteriori.” Comp. Beza, Calvin, Wetstein, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 603 f.; Hilgenfeld also, Evang. p. 175. The objection against this view, taken by Olshausen and Bleek, that the aorist
ἠγάπησε
is inappropriate, is quite a mistake, and is nullified by passages such as Joh_3:16. The
ἀφέωνται
expresses that the woman is in the condition of forgiveness (in statu gratiae), and that the criterion thereof is the much love manifested by her. It is thereafter in Luk_7:48 that Jesus makes, even to herself, the express declaration.
ὧ
δὲ
ὀλίγον
ἀφίεται
,
ὀλίγ
.
ἀγαπᾷ
] a general decision in precise opposition to the first half of the verse, with intentional application to the moral condition of the Pharisee, which is of such a kind that only a little forgiveness falls to his share, the consequence being that he also manifests but little love (Luk_7:44-46). There was too much want of self-knowledge and of repentance in the self-righteous Simon for him to be a subject of much forgiveness.